It has been opposed by (among others) Sens. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado). Sen. Udall has introduced an amendment to remove sections 1031-1032, which would conform the bill to customary American values. President Obama, to his credit, is threatening to veto the bill if the two sections are included.* The White House issued this statement giving the President's objections:
Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.I would have liked it better if the President could say "Fourth Amendment," but I suppose that is asking too much.
Dr. Andrew Bosworth, writing for the Canadian think tank Global Research, has done an extensive analysis of the bill, which is reproduced in the Infowars.com website. In an article aptly titled "Treason from Within," Dr. Bosworth cites the opinion of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507 (2004), in which an attempt was made to detain Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen, as an enemy combatant:
… it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.
Dr. Bosworth concludes:
The “war on terror” was originally to be waged against foreigners in far-away lands, but Rep. Ron Paul was right, the anti-terror infrastructure is swinging around to be used against American citizens.Couldn't have said it better myself, though I will add a couple of comments:
This was the design all along.
The intention was always to immobilize the American public with a police-state control grid, now backed by the regular military, so that the process of economic extraction and political subjection could be completed.
The NDAA for 2012 represents a significant step, on the part of the government, towards a “final takedown.”
The bill’s provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens, without charge or trial, represents nothing short of an declaration of war by the federal government on the American people.
If there is danger from terrorism (and there may well be), it is because we have sent our military abroad, who have killed innocent civilians in "collateral damage." As one active-duty soldier put it, "There is no flag large enough to cover... the shame of killing innocent people" (in Pakistan, for example). Further restricting our liberties only erodes the moral standing this country once had with the world -- and for that matter, with its own people.
If this bill is enacted without the Udall Amendment, I will consider it to execute both Triggers 1 and 2 to Ohio independence (see right panel), and will thereupon press for independence in earnest.
Even if a soldier knocks down the door of my home and takes me.
Update 9 pm: The Washington Times reports that the Senate voted 61-37 to approve the bill, including Sections 1031-1032. Senators Rand Paul and Mark Steven Kirk (R-Illinois) were the only Republicans voting against the bill because of the language. Forty-four Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one independent voted in favor. The Constitution is dead. Heaven help us all.
Virtual buckeyes to Charlie Earl and Jason Rink.
* Unless Sen. Levin is right, and the President was conveniently posturing against a position he originally pressed for.